Several dozen members of the House have introduced a resolution that calls on President Obama not to sign the United Nations's Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). It also demands that if Obama does sign it, the government should not spend any time or money on implementation until the Senate approves it.

Obama’s plan to circumvent the Constitution of the United States is an Impeachable Offense. It will give the UN, Useless Nations, the right to control our right to possess arms. The mere suggestion of this makes my blood boil.

Is there some hope that the Senate won't rubber stamp and approve it? Obama seems to ignore any resolutions or letters from the republicans in congress, so I believe the ‘strongly worded’ resolution is a waste of time, but is there enough sane democrats left in the Senate to link up with the minority republicans any kill the bill?

Remember!?!?!?! This is mostly the same house and senate members that passed the NDAA (lock em up by command of the president without charge, without access to counsel and indefinitely). Don’t worry, just sit back and accept the fact there is no longer a Constitution so accept that the majority of supposedly elected traitors in DC will WITHOUT A DOUBT allow the US to adopt this UN treaty. Most politicians denigrate the Tea Party folks because they are scared to death of us thus they must disarm us. Once this treaty is passed we can all respond in an appropriate fashion as the obozo, Holder, Hitlery and it, it goes by Janet Nipolitano, attempt to confiscate our firearms.

Yeah but how many Americans (and dogs) will have to be killed by local SWAT teams, Sheriffs, police, ATF, FBI, before the 0bamamedia covers it? Were there any gun confiscations during Hurricane Sandy? The 0bamamedia are NOT reporting ANYTHING which would incite law-abiding Americans to revolt. Besides voter fraud, this enabled 0bama’s re-election; Benghazi is one example.

Treaties must be ratified. The President cannot enter into any treaty all by his dictatorial little self.

Then why pray tell did George Bush bother to "unsign" the International Criminal Court Treaty? Hmmm???

Ever since the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties went into force, a signature is enough grounds for the government to begin to enforce it. Even though the Senate rejected it, it has been treated by the government as "customary international law."

Oh, and if you still feel comfy in that ignorance, realize this: Per Article II Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, it only takes 34 Senators to ratify a treaty, "two thirds of the Senators present" presuming a quorum of 51. You can learn more about how that happened here.

3. Treaties must be ratified. The President cannot enter into any treaty all by his dictatorial little self.

8. But he CAN order that all government agencies under his control, including the ATF, act as though it were the law of the land.

10. Adopting it and enforcing it are to different issues. ...

15. A government that would try to implement this treaty in America would prove beyond all doubt that they mean to invoke an insurrection, with the intent to establish a dictatorship after squashing it.

16. But that would mean he would have to ignore the rule of law and our founding documents

17. ... Ever since the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties went into force, a signature is enough grounds for the government to begin to enforce it. Even though the Senate rejected it, it has been treated by the government as "customary international law." ...

Most of us seem to be on the same page and see that a 2/3rd Senate ratification barrier will not be an impediment for BHO. He has shown his disdain for the Constitution and conservatives. His AG, Eric Holder, sure hasn't let a House resolution of contempt because of "Fast & Furious" slow him down. Didn't Clinton sign the Kyoto Accord? Other Freepers have pointed out that once the chief executive (POTUS) signs off on the UN bill, the bill remains in stasis just waiting for that future time when there is a 2/3 Senate majority. Aren't those U.S. gun stores along the Mexican border still under a DoJ restriction of 1 firearm sale per person per day?

I think the House members are just sending a shot over Barry’s bow. There are not 67 votes in the Senate for this POS. If politicians know how to do one thing it is stick thdeir finger in the wind. There is no desire for gun control in this country. It would kick off CWII.

21
posted on 11/20/2012 6:59:51 PM PST
by Georgia Girl 2
(The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)

Well welcome aboard! Philman_36 and I have been trying to get FReepers to understand the threat of treaties for over a decade. I'm getting damned tired of dealing with "it takes 67 Senators" over and over.

The President cannot enter into any treaty all by his dictatorial little self.

Just who do you think will stop him? I have little reason to trust the Senate and the house has no real say other than budget, and they have shown their true self by letting the administration operate without a budget for four years.

We have no clue where the money is going or how much.

25
posted on 11/21/2012 1:56:03 AM PST
by itsahoot
(Any enemy, that is allowed to have a King's X line, is undefeatable. (USS Taluga AO-62))

For an administration with a secretive itch for gun control, the situation is ideal. They can let the United Nations do the dirty work of drafting onerous new restrictions on civilian firearms, then package them inside a treaty with legitimate measures to control true military armaments.

The U.N. has scheduled the treaty to be finished in July of next year  just in time to go to the Obama White House for ratification.

Thats under the radar for you.

But one risk of operating under the radar is that you cant see the moves of your opponents. This is not the first U.N. gun-control rodeo for my friends at the National Rifle Association. They know treaty ratification requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Thirty-four senators would have to vote no to block the treaty.

While the rest of Washington was fixated on the debt ceiling debate, the NRA quietly marshaled opposition to the treaty among pro-gun senators.

Fifty-eight senators have now called out the president on his plan. Led by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), 45 Republicans and 13 Democrats have written two strong letters one from members of each party  to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. All the senators have vowed to oppose any treaty that restricts civilian firearm ownership.

Whats ironic is that the United States already has the worlds pre-eminent system for regulation of true military arms sales. If the rest of the world merely adopted the U.S. regulatory regime, there would be no need for an Arms Trade Treaty.

They (the NRA - CO) know treaty ratification requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Thirty-four senators would have to vote no to block the treaty.

I'll bet you a $1000 donation to FReerepublic that this is dead wrong. You have no idea how dangerous promulgating this error really is, at which you went on about it at unreasonable length. Nor did you even read the thread where that fact is explained before offering your inestimable opinion.

Either that or you can go and read what Article II Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution actually says. Given the language of that clause, a treaty can be ratified legally by as few as 34 Senators and (given the precedent of what constitutes a filibuster) conceivably as few as TWO (2) . If you want to understand how it got that way read this.

Harry Reid is a master of underhanded procedure. He knows how to get this treaty to the floor without a committee vote. He may know how to get it to a vote without a filibuster. And there you sit, confident in your comfort, because the NRA has your back. Oh, and I'm sure the NRA explained all of that to you, right?

One last thing, despite your blandishments about the United States' wonderful system for tracking military weapons sales, how does that explain Fast & Furious? Iran Contra?? Arms sales to the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria???

This treaty would end the practice of arming oppressed peoples to take down their tyrannical governments. How do you think we armed the resistance to fascism in Europe? How the hell do you think the colonists of this country got their weapons???? Is that what you want?

I know of at least one instance in which a treaty was ratified without a quorum (if you click the link I provided above, you'll see that it was a lulu). In the past, I have suggested a 24-7 watch on the Senate chambers with designated Senators maintaining an "on-call list."

You didn't, and you didn't say anything incorrect. It was a sort of cc to let you know why I get so blasted tired of this stupidity. It was a cry for help to one whom I know is capable of rendering aid. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Of course we now have no need for Congress at all since legislation is regularly skirted with EOs.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.